• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatest General in History

Who Was the Greatest Military Leader in History?

  • Georgy Zhukov

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexander Suvorov

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Helmuth von Moltke

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oliver Cromwell

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19
Sun Tzu
thread over
 
Just two points -- firstly, I can't include MacArthur on the list, not out of personal enmity for what a raging maniac the guy was (though he was, to be sure), but simply because of his stunning defeat in Korea. Every inch of ground, every merit of success he gained in landing at Inchon and invading North Korea is diminished by the American army's total defeat at the hands of the Red Chinese a few months later.

I'm pretty sure your average South Korean who knows the history would disagree. Not that you'd ever acknowledge such.
 
I'm pretty sure your average South Korean who knows the history would disagree. Not that you'd ever acknowledge such.

Er... How would they disagree? Are you attempting to deny the fact that the Americans lost to the Red Chinese, got pushed out of North Korea, and had to watch as China and the Soviet Union built up a communist Chinese satellite North Korea instead?

That's just fact, mate. That's why there's a North Korea today.

Who is disputing that?
 
Er... How would they disagree? Are you attempting to deny the fact that the Americans lost to the Red Chinese, got pushed out of North Korea, and had to watch as China and the Soviet Union built up a communist Chinese satellite North Korea instead?

That's just fact, mate. That's why there's a North Korea today.

Considering when MacArthur found it, the Norks were occupying SOUTH Korea (which I'm sure you know, though you're posting to imply otherwise), and they haven't for 60 years since, I'd say you're either simply trying to bash the United States or trolling for an argument, or (most likely) both. Seems pretty obvious to me, what with all this talk of "total defeat of the American army." :roll:
 
Considering when MacArthur found it, the Norks were occupying SOUTH Korea (which I'm sure you know, though you're posting to imply otherwise), and they haven't for 60 years since, I'd say you're either simply trying to bash the United States or trolling for an argument, or (most likely) both. Seems pretty obvious to me, what with all this talk of "total defeat of the American army." :roll:

I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm simply explaining that MacArthur's defeats in North Korea exclude him from the list. Look. The North Koreans invaded South Korea, and nearly conquered the entire peninsula. Then MacArthur and the UN show up, invade the port of Inchon, and sweep the North Koreans out of South Korea. Fantastic. He should have left it there, that would have been an admirable campaign.

Instead, due to his irate hatred of communism, he decides to invade North Korea, and once he's nearly conquered the entire place, he sends scouts over the Chinese border. I can not think of a single way he could have ****ed up his campaign more effectively than that. And what does China do? They send a million man army to rout the Americans, which they do, and push them back all the way to the South Korean border, thus negating MacArthur's conquest of North Korea.

For that, he is a poor strategist and general.


Furthermore, I must note that stating the fact that America has lost wars, or battles, or disputes in the past, is not being anti-American. Only idiots and blind ubernationalists believe, somehow, that America has never lost a war, and that it's invincible.

To claim that I'm trolling because I say that the American army was defeated in North Korea (which is a well-documented and universally accepted fact) is the height of ignorance.
 
I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm simply explaining that MacArthur's defeats in North Korea exclude him from the list. Look. The North Koreans invaded South Korea, and nearly conquered the entire peninsula. Then MacArthur and the UN show up, invade the port of Inchon, and sweep the North Koreans out of South Korea. Fantastic. He should have left it there, that would have been an admirable campaign.

Instead, due to his irate hatred of communism, he decides to invade North Korea, and once he's nearly conquered the entire place, he sends scouts over the Chinese border. I can not think of a single way he could have ****ed up his campaign more effectively than that. And what does China do? They send a million man army to rout the Americans, which they do, and push them back all the way to the South Korean border, thus negating MacArthur's conquest of North Korea.

For that, he is a poor strategist and general.


Furthermore, I must note that stating the fact that America has lost wars, or battles, or disputes in the past, is not being anti-American. Only idiots and blind ubernationalists believe, somehow, that America has never lost a war, and that it's invincible.

To claim that I'm trolling because I say that the American army was defeated in North Korea (which is a well-documented and universally accepted fact) is the height of ignorance.

No, the "height of ignorance" is to gleefully say "total defeat of the American army" when South Korea was clearly liberated (and maintained) by said Army. So yeah, you're trolling. Or you're ignorant of the topic.

Consider also that MacArthur's strategic recommendations were not followed by the civilian leadership. You can say it's for better or worse (especially as he recommended use of atomic weaponry), but either way, it's not a reflection on MacArthur himself.

Never mind that the UN mandate under which the United States was operating was to repel the invasion of South Korea, not to "liberate" North Korea. Strangely enough, that repulsion was effected within weeks.

So, either you knew that and chose to ignore it, or you were ignorant of it.
 
I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm simply explaining that MacArthur's defeats in North Korea exclude him from the list. Look. The North Koreans invaded South Korea, and nearly conquered the entire peninsula. Then MacArthur and the UN show up, invade the port of Inchon, and sweep the North Koreans out of South Korea. Fantastic. He should have left it there, that would have been an admirable campaign.

Instead, due to his irate hatred of communism, he decides to invade North Korea, and once he's nearly conquered the entire place, he sends scouts over the Chinese border. I can not think of a single way he could have ****ed up his campaign more effectively than that. And what does China do? They send a million man army to rout the Americans, which they do, and push them back all the way to the South Korean border, thus negating MacArthur's conquest of North Korea.

For that, he is a poor strategist and general.


Furthermore, I must note that stating the fact that America has lost wars, or battles, or disputes in the past, is not being anti-American. Only idiots and blind ubernationalists believe, somehow, that America has never lost a war, and that it's invincible.

To claim that I'm trolling because I say that the American army was defeated in North Korea (which is a well-documented and universally accepted fact) is the height of ignorance.

MacArthur didn't send scouts across the Yalu River into China's Jilin Province. If he had he would have known that half a million members of the People's Liberation Army were massing along the border, and he would have prepared for their offensive.
 
No, the "height of ignorance" is to gleefully say "total defeat of the American army" when South Korea was clearly liberated (and maintained) by said Army. So yeah, you're trolling. Or you're ignorant of the topic.

Consider also that MacArthur's strategic recommendations were not followed by the civilian leadership. You can say it's for better or worse (especially as he recommended use of atomic weaponry), but either way, it's not a reflection on MacArthur himself.

Never mind that the UN mandate under which the United States was operating was to repel the invasion of South Korea, not to "liberate" North Korea. Strangely enough, that repulsion was effected within weeks.

So, either you knew that and chose to ignore it, or you were ignorant of it.

I totally fail to see how MacArthur's successful liberation of South Korea has any bearing on his defeat in North Korea.

Look, here is the thesis:

MacArthur. Does. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. He. Lost. In. North. Korea.


That's all.
 
I totally fail to see how MacArthur's successful liberation of South Korea has any bearing on his defeat in North Korea.

Look, here is the thesis:

MacArthur. Does. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. He. Lost. In. North. Korea.


That's all.
for confirmation of this opinion, ask Harry S Truman
the fellow who fired mac
 
I totally fail to see how MacArthur's successful liberation of South Korea has any bearing on his defeat in North Korea.

Of course you totally fail to see it, because acknowledging said liberation means there wasn't a "total defeat of the American army." You made no qualifications when you said then, so I see you're committed to simply ignoring that rather incovenient, yet incontrovertible, fact.


Look, here is the thesis:

MacArthur. Does. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. He. Lost. In. North. Korea.

That's all.



No, you said there was "total defeat of the American army." It's obvious you're not going to back down from that overreach, but no half-intelligent reader can miss it.

And as "him" losing in North Korea, I've already pointed out that the civilian leadership refused to back his plan. If his plan wasn't implemented, then it's not on him. Another thing you seem intent on ignoring.

What's more obvious is that "Macarthur. Does. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. No. American. Could. In. Your. Mind." Your feeble reasoning and refusal to acknowledge things inconvenient to your statement pretty much show it.

Solidification of same: Napoleon. Should. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. He. Had. His. Ass. Handed. To. Him. Several. Times. Funny how he made it, though. MacArthur never ended up imprisoned anywhere.
 
I can't respect Hannibal for his entire campaign.
Addressed below.



Cannae is, of course, held up as one of the most decisive and tactically supreme battles in the history of warfare.
Why did you leave out Lake Trasemine? It and Cannae make Hannibal unique,
reason for which I gave in my earlier post. Also, Trasimene was the only battle
in history where a general employed his entire army in ambush. Mention should
also be made of Trebia, the first battle of the campaign. After Cannae the Romans
were so intimidated that they declined to offer full-scale battle in Italy for the
rest of the war.



But invading Rome with a bunch of elephants from Africa?
It is impossible to say how much, if any, the elephants helped as beasts
of burden. They are not known to have played any role in any battle,
and some authorities think none survived the march.



Taking your army over an impassible mountain range?
Impassible? What are you talking about? He got over with enough Iberian,
North African and Carthaginian troops to open a campaign in Italy which
was to last ~15 years.

Numerous other great captains have also crossed the Alps to good effect,
including Suvorov (if in retreat) Caesar, and Napoleon for sure, and I would
guess Charlemagne as well.



They were daring tactics, and daring tactics are often held as impressive, but it's better if they work. XD
You are I think confusing strategy (when and where you fight) with tactics
(how you fight). Hannibal did well enough at both to impress the Romans
quite a bit!



Hannibal lost the war.
I do not dismiss this point, but I place the most weight on brilliance in
personal command of troops in battle and IMO Hannibal has no peer.

His less gifted brothers were the ones who lost the war, by their defeats
in Spain and later in Italy. Hannibal himself nearly won the last battle of
Zama, and probably would have won it if he had had enough cavalry to
hold off the enemy cavalry a short while longer, because the Roman infantry
was on the verge of collapse.

Maharbal the original Carthaginian cavalry commander is said to have urged
a march on Rome immediately after Cannae, and this may have offered the
best hope to win the war, although every modern commnetator I have read
demurrs on the issue.
 
Of course you totally fail to see it, because acknowledging said liberation means there wasn't a "total defeat of the American army." You made no qualifications when you said then, so I see you're committed to simply ignoring that rather incovenient, yet incontrovertible, fact.






No, you said there was "total defeat of the American army." It's obvious you're not going to back down from that overreach, but no half-intelligent reader can miss it.

And as "him" losing in North Korea, I've already pointed out that the civilian leadership refused to back his plan. If his plan wasn't implemented, then it's not on him. Another thing you seem intent on ignoring.

What's more obvious is that "Macarthur. Does. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. No. American. Could. In. Your. Mind." Your feeble reasoning and refusal to acknowledge things inconvenient to your statement pretty much show it.

Solidification of same: Napoleon. Should. Not. Qualify. For. This. List. Because. He. Had. His. Ass. Handed. To. Him. Several. Times. Funny how he made it, though. MacArthur never ended up imprisoned anywhere.


I am mystified by how we're still arguing about this. I am not denying or refuting or diminishing MacArthur's successful, and even brilliant invasion at Inchon, and subsequent liberation of South Korea. I am not denying, refuting or diminishing MacArthur's successful defense of the South Korean state.

Neither of those things, though, have any bearing on the fact that the American Army was defeated in North Korea. You seem to be having difficulty with the conceptual difference between "defeated" and "destroyed", so let me explain: An army can be defeated, routed, and sent fleeing, or an army can be destroyed. The American army in North Korea was defeated, routed and sent fleeing to South Korea, where they began constructing the Demilitarised Zone after the truce.

That is in no way a caveat to their defeat in North Korea.

This is simple bloody progressive logic.

As for the civilian leadership not backing his plan -- Truman and the lot didn't back his plan to nuke the hell out of China and the Soviet Union, because that was bat****e insane. They DID endorse his invasion of North Korea, and he DID lead the invasion of North Korea, and he DID lose to the Chinese in the stage of the war in North Korea, so that IS on him. Alright?



Furthermore, it's absolute speculation, with no evidence or support, that there are no Americans on the list because of some childish hatred I hold towards them.

What is more likely is that the United States is only 200-odd years old, whereas the people of most of the nations on that list are thousands of years old. Furthermore, American military might has only been noteworthy in the 20th century, meaning there's a very small window of opportunity, about a hundred years, for a great American general or tactician to arise.

And anyway, there have been some. Among the noteworthy American military leaders, we can cite: Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Patton. But I believe, and I think most people would agree with me on this, that, as great as many of those men were, you can't compare them to Napoleon or Caesar, etc., who went above and beyond, whose names are not just standard fare for students of history, but standard fare for every human on Earth.
 
Addressed below.




Why did you leave out Lake Trasemine? It and Cannae make Hannibal unique,
reason for which I gave in my earlier post. Also, Trasimene was the only battle
in history where a general employed his entire army in ambush. Mention should
also be made of Trebia, the first battle of the campaign. After Cannae the Romans
were so intimidated that they declined to offer full-scale battle in Italy for the
rest of the war.




It is impossible to say how much, if any, the elephants helped as beasts
of burden. They are not known to have played any role in any battle,
and some authorities think none survived the march.




Impassible? What are you talking about? He got over with enough Iberian,
North African and Carthaginian troops to open a campaign in Italy which
was to last ~15 years.

Numerous other great captains have also crossed the Alps to good effect,
including Suvorov (if in retreat) Caesar, and Napoleon for sure, and I would
guess Charlemagne as well.




You are I think confusing strategy (when and where you fight) with tactics
(how you fight). Hannibal did well enough at both to impress the Romans
quite a bit!




I do not dismiss this point, but I place the most weight on brilliance in
personal command of troops in battle and IMO Hannibal has no peer.

His less gifted brothers were the ones who lost the war, by their defeats
in Spain and later in Italy. Hannibal himself nearly won the last battle of
Zama, and probably would have won it if he had had enough cavalry to
hold off the enemy cavalry a short while longer, because the Roman infantry
was on the verge of collapse.

Maharbal the original Carthaginian cavalry commander is said to have urged
a march on Rome immediately after Cannae, and this may have offered the
best hope to win the war, although every modern commnetator I have read
demurrs on the issue.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not cutting Hannibal down to stocks -- not at all. He's one of the fathers of warfare, one of the most influential generals in history, and his victories and defeats were all impressive in his favour. He is, beyond a doubt, one of history's greatest generals.

But the question is, does he deserve a spot on the list over Napoleon? Over Zhukov? Over Alexander? I contemplated putting him on the list, to be sure, but I think I gave the spot to Alexander instead. But that's what we're here to discuss, isn't it?

Does Hannibal deserve a spot on the list over one of the people mentioned?



(As a minor note, I would like to clarify that the Alps are indeed a passable mountain range, but a costly one, for an army from Africa towing along elephants that had just marched along most of present-day Algeria and Iberia. I just think that it was a bad move, and given Hannibal's reputation, it would have served him better to just fight or scare the Romans out of a more hospitable route towards Rome, than trying to circumvent the fighting over the Alps.)
 
Khan was not a general. He should not be on the list. Most of the conquests he is acredited with actually was done by his generals, one in specific... Subatai.
Without looking it up I do not think this is accurate- GK certainly did
command troops in person in battle from youth well into adulthood
against numerous formidable enemies, including China, whose conquest
he begun and Subatai and others finished.
 
What about Justinian's go to guy, General Belisarius? His North African and Italian campaign's were brilliant considering the lack of resources that could be mustered. He certainly rose above the era in which he lived.

Edit: What about Tammerlane? His rough treatment of the Ottomans set them back by a century.
 
Last edited:
I am mystified by how we're still arguing about this.

Then stop. :shrug:

I am not denying or refuting or diminishing MacArthur's successful, and even brilliant invasion at Inchon, and subsequent liberation of South Korea. I am not denying, refuting or diminishing MacArthur's successful defense of the South Korean state.

Yet you said "total defeat of the American army." You made no qualifications. We did what we went there to do.


Neither of those things, though, have any bearing on the fact that the American Army was defeated in North Korea. You seem to be having difficulty with the conceptual difference between "defeated" and "destroyed", so let me explain: An army can be defeated, routed, and sent fleeing, or an army can be destroyed. The American army in North Korea was defeated, routed and sent fleeing to South Korea, where they began constructing the Demilitarised Zone after the truce.

That is in no way a caveat to their defeat in North Korea.

This is simple bloody progressive logic.

As for the civilian leadership not backing his plan -- Truman and the lot didn't back his plan to nuke the hell out of China and the Soviet Union, because that was bat****e insane. They DID endorse his invasion of North Korea, and he DID lead the invasion of North Korea, and he DID lose to the Chinese in the stage of the war in North Korea, so that IS on him. Alright?

As I said, it doesn't matter if not backing his plan was right or wrong (though you have mischaracterized badly, probably intentionally); he considered it the correct military option, and it wasn't implemented. While whether or not it would have worked is pure speculation, the fact remains, it wasn't used. But considering his obvious and demonstrated military brilliance, I think I'd take his thoughts on the matter as vastly superior to yours.

In any case, we'll never know. What we do know is that his strategy wasn't used, yet you're calling him a "poor strategist and general" because of it. That's simply head-pounding stupidity.



Furthermore, it's absolute speculation, with no evidence or support, that there are no Americans on the list because of some childish hatred I hold towards them.

What is more likely is that the United States is only 200-odd years old, whereas the people of most of the nations on that list are thousands of years old. Furthermore, American military might has only been noteworthy in the 20th century, meaning there's a very small window of opportunity, about a hundred years, for a great American general or tactician to arise.

And anyway, there have been some. Among the noteworthy American military leaders, we can cite: Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Patton. But I believe, and I think most people would agree with me on this, that, as great as many of those men were, you can't compare them to Napoleon or Caesar, etc., who went above and beyond, whose names are not just standard fare for students of history, but standard fare for every human on Earth.

The rest of this is simply irrelevant bleating.

As I said, you listed Napoleon, who has far more crushing defeats under his belt, including being exiled and imprisoned (twice). Yet for some reason, North Korea is a disqualifying defeat for MacArthur, even though he didn't get to do what he wanted to do. Yet for some reason, Napoleon belongs on the list. Hmmm. Why the difference? Can't imagine.
 
Last edited:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not cutting Hannibal down to stocks -- not at all. He's one of the fathers of warfare, one of the most influential generals in history, and his victories and defeats were all impressive in his favour. He is, beyond a doubt, one of history's greatest generals.
OK so far.


But the question is, does he deserve a spot on the list over Napoleon? Over Zhukov? Over Alexander? I contemplated putting him on the list, to be sure, but I think I gave the spot to Alexander instead. But that's what we're here to discuss, isn't it?

Does Hannibal deserve a spot on the list over one of the people mentioned?
Of the 10 on your OP list IMO Cromwell is the best candidate for replacement.

Cromwell was a subordinate cavalry commander at Marston Moor and Naseby
(and an excellent one at that), but he was CIC in only one major battle that
I know of- Dunbar, whereas all the others on the list were CIC in numerous battles.


(As a minor note, I would like to clarify that the Alps are indeed a passable mountain range, but a costly one, for an army from Africa towing along elephants that had just marched along most of present-day Algeria and Iberia.
Too little is known about the fate of elephants to say whether or not
they added any value to their owners' cause.



I just think that it was a bad move, and given Hannibal's reputation,
Hannibal made his reputation in Italy. Before then he was a relatively
unknown quality.


it would have served him better to just fight or scare the Romans out of a more hospitable route towards Rome, than trying to circumvent the fighting over the Alps.)
There was no other route to Rome except by sea.

Rome established complete dominance by sea in the 1st Punic War.
In fact, their final naval victory was what compelled the Carthaginians
to sue for peace. I have never been able to find any commentary at
all on naval matters during the 2nd Punic War. I assume Rome was
overwhelmingly stronger, because no naval action is mentioned, and
Rome ferried armies to Sciily and Africa unhindered.

On the other hand, Hannibal somehow got his army, less the cavalry,
from Italy to Africa in the last year of the war, and I would like to know
more than what I been able to find.

It is possible that Carthage would have been best served by taking over
all Spain and the littoral south Gaul, and then going on the strategic defensive.
However, leaving Rome undisturbed in its home ground had spelled defeat
in the 1st Punic War, so it was natural to consider an altogether different
strategy.
 
What is more likely is that the United States is only 200-odd years old, whereas the people of most of the nations on that list are thousands of years old. Furthermore, American military might has only been noteworthy in the 20th century, meaning there's a very small window of opportunity, about a hundred years, for a great American general or tactician to arise.

Actually - The American Continents - North, Central and South - have been populated just as long as the continents of Africa and even Australia.

Our country itself evolved like most other countries: populated by ancient civilizations who had their own cultures, languages, philosophies and military history. . . thousands of years later Europeans wandered into the American wilderness - and there starts the modern post 1492 history of the Western Hemisphere which most people are merely partially aware of.

Europeans merely colonized this continent - they brought it into their realm of knowledge, but they didn't mold it from clay.

In the development of the US we had our own revolutionaries (our own Trotsky's and Lenin's, if you will) - we wiped the indigenous peoples by the thousands. We furthered our own needs, expanded into more land, and unified ourselves with little regard for who was already here - and that was all said and done before the US became an idea of an actual nation.

We didn't become any type of a solid nation until the Articles of the Confederation were written and put into full application in 1777 - followed by the Constitution which was ratified in 1788 - and after that we continued to expand and grow exponentially. If you're looking at mere amount of land amassed, peoples conquered and battles won - we can take a slice of that Cake.

Many European and African countries didn't exist either 200 years ago - but yet their history pre-founding isn't ignored much like the history of this entire half of the world frequently is.

But I'm sure you've heard of Geronimo, Tecumseh and many others - you just don't realize it.

And anyway, there have been some. Among the noteworthy American military leaders, we can cite: Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Patton. But I believe, and I think most people would agree with me on this, that, as great as many of those men were, you can't compare them to Napoleon or Caesar, etc., who went above and beyond, whose names are not just standard fare for students of history, but standard fare for every human on Earth.
 
Last edited:
Zhukov because hecause he took on many of the great gernerals of Europe and came out on top, pushed the Germans out of his country and destroyed Germany.
 
Actually - The American Continents - North, Central and South - have been populated just as long as the continents of Africa and even Australia.

Our country itself evolved like most other countries: populated by ancient civilizations who had their own cultures, languages, philosophies and military history. . . thousands of years later Europeans wandered into the American wilderness - and there starts the modern post 1492 history of the Western Hemisphere which most people are merely partially aware of.

Europeans merely colonized this continent - they brought it into their realm of knowledge, but they didn't mold it from clay.

In the development of the US we had our own revolutionaries (our own Trotsky's and Lenin's, if you will) - we wiped the indigenous peoples by the thousands. We furthered our own needs, expanded into more land, and unified ourselves with little regard for who was already here - and that was all said and done before the US became an idea of an actual nation.

We didn't become any type of a solid nation until the Articles of the Confederation were written and put into full application in 1777 - followed by the Constitution which was ratified in 1788 - and after that we continued to expand and grow exponentially. If you're looking at mere amount of land amassed, peoples conquered and battles won - we can take a slice of that Cake.

Many European and African countries didn't exist either 200 years ago - but yet their history pre-founding isn't ignored much like the history of this entire half of the world frequently is.

But I'm sure you've heard of Geronimo, Tecumseh and many others - you just don't realize it.

You've mistaken me. I am not somehow attempting to say that the Americas themselves only popped into existence two hundred years ago, and I am also not denying that there have been great generals who made their names there long before the War of American Independence.

However, the person I was arguing with is, I infer, a hardline American nationalist, and when he claimed I didn't put any Americans on the list out of hatred for America, I am fairly certain he would have found Geronimo's presence, or Santa Anna's presence, less than desirable, even though by your definition, they are indeed Americans.

And I must admit that I would probably align myself more closely with his definition of an "American" -- a person from the United States (or in a rare exception, a person from the Confederate States. Texas is a bit of a puzzler, I admit), and with that definition, there has been a very short period of history from which a great military leader could arise.

Thus, there are no 'Americans' on the list, by the most common definition.
 
You've mistaken me. I am not somehow attempting to say that the Americas themselves only popped into existence two hundred years ago, and I am also not denying that there have been great generals who made their names there long before the War of American Independence.

However, the person I was arguing with is, I infer, a hardline American nationalist, and when he claimed I didn't put any Americans on the list out of hatred for America, I am fairly certain he would have found Geronimo's presence, or Santa Anna's presence, less than desirable, even though by your definition, they are indeed Americans.

And I must admit that I would probably align myself more closely with his definition of an "American" -- a person from the United States (or in a rare exception, a person from the Confederate States. Texas is a bit of a puzzler, I admit), and with that definition, there has been a very short period of history from which a great military leader could arise.

Thus, there are no 'Americans' on the list, by the most common definition.

The dishonesty with which you describe what I said -- and also your speculations as to what I'd think about this or that -- pretty much indicate to me that I'm dead on. How is this anything but further trolling?

As you say, one is not necessarily "anti-American" for pointing out American military failures, if such they be. But neither is one a "hardline American nationalist" for taking issue with a blatant, derogatory mishcharacterization of American military fortunes, nor in speculating, based on that characterization and also the sum total of that person's posting history, from whence the motivation for said mischaracterization might spring.

In other words, "mate," methinks thou doth protesteth too much.
 
I'm not aware of any greater conqueror than Alexander.

He was a thug and a murderer and a despot, but he's the greatest conqueror the world has ever known.
 
I'll also note that Hannibal and Epameinondas are absent from the poll.
 
You've mistaken me. I am not somehow attempting to say that the Americas themselves only popped into existence two hundred years ago, and I am also not denying that there have been great generals who made their names there long before the War of American Independence.

However, the person I was arguing with is, I infer, a hardline American nationalist, and when he claimed I didn't put any Americans on the list out of hatred for America, I am fairly certain he would have found Geronimo's presence, or Santa Anna's presence, less than desirable, even though by your definition, they are indeed Americans.

And I must admit that I would probably align myself more closely with his definition of an "American" -- a person from the United States (or in a rare exception, a person from the Confederate States. Texas is a bit of a puzzler, I admit), and with that definition, there has been a very short period of history from which a great military leader could arise.

Thus, there are no 'Americans' on the list, by the most common definition.

I see, that makes sense.

But you know - in all my years of attending college and what not there is s notable huge disparity in the taught-history of the world as far as regions go. . . The Eastern hemisphere is focused on heavily . . and since the physical United states is tied into that - focus is heavy there, too. The only mentioning of South America seems to be when they were touched by the Atlantic slave trade - and anything else related to colonization, etc.

But that's usually the scope of it - it stops there.

I have a book with a war-map (I can't find one online, however, that matches it) - which highlights all the major waring areas throughout history - and it's a biomorphic of all these areas that we're discussing in this thread but without South America and certain nothing within Australia.

And I've noticed that, upon exploring world history within any course-context, warfare is the focus.
Rather than following the evolution of the world culture to culture and how they affect each other in all other ways (which are more common - a daily occurrence) - they focus merely on the warfare, treaties, and alliances.

And with all this history-education-through-warfare being given on a wide scale, which is downright depressing at times, people wonder why more educated people - out of college - are liberals and anti-war.

so - that's the American-side of history and how it's taught, anyway.
How does it differ in England?

Ok - I totally digressed with this post but thanks for reading anyway.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom